that he speaketh of these who indeed were in company is quite besides the text The second Argument Such Pastors as the seven Angels Christ ordained But such were Diocesan Bishopâ Ergo. The assumption proved Those who were of singular preheminency amongst other Pastors and had corrective power over all others in their Churches they were Diocesan bishops But the Angels were singular persons in every Church having Ecclesiâsticall preheminence and superiority of power Eâgo they were Diocesan bishops The assumption is proved Those who were shadowed by seven singular Starres were seven singular persons But the Angels were so Ergo. Againe Those to whom onely Christ did write who onely bare the praise dispraise threatning in regard of what was in thâ Church amisse or otherwise they had Majority of power above others But these Angels are written to onely they are onely praised dispraised threatned Ergo. c. Answ. 1. In the two first syllogismes the assumption is denyed Secondly in the first Prosyllogisme the consequence of the prâposition is denied That they must needs be seven singular persons For seven singular starres may signifie seven Vnites whether singular or aggregative seven pluralities of persons who are so united as if they were one And it is frequent in Scripture to note by a unity a united multitude Thirdly the consequence of the proposition of the last prosyllogisme is denyed For though we should suppose singular persons written to yet a preheminency in order and greater authority without majority of power is reason enough why they should be written to singularly and blamed or praised above other Thus the Master of a Colledge though he have no negative voyce might be written to and blamed for the misdemeanours of his Colledge not that he hath a power over-ruling all but because such is his dignity that did he doe his endeavour in dealing with and perswading others there is no disorder which he might not see redressed Fourthly againe the assumption may be denyed That they are onely written to For though they are onely named yet the whole Churches are written to in them the supereminent member of the Church by a Synecdoche put for the whole Church For it was the custome in the Apostles times and long after that not any singular persons but the whole Churches were written unto as in Pauls Epistles is manifest and in many examples Ecclesiasticall And that this was done by Christ here the Epiphonemaes testifie Let every one beare what the spirit speaketh to the Churches The third Argument Those whom the Apostles ordained were of Apostolicall institution But they ordained Bishops Ergo. The assumption is proved by induction First thây ordained Iames Bishop of Jerusalem presently after Christs ascention Ergo. they ordained Bishops This is testified by Eusebius lib. 2. Histo. cap. 1. out of Clâment and Hegesippus yea that the Church he sate in was reserved to his time lib. 7. cap. 19. 32. This our owne author Ierom testifieth Catalog Script Epiph. ad haer 66. Chrysost. in Act. 3. 33. Ambâos in Galath 1.9 Dorothâus in Synopsis Aug. contra Câes lib. 2. cap. 37. the generall Councell of Const. in Trull cap. 32. For though hee could not receive power of order yet they might gâve him power of jurisdiction and assigâe him his Church So thât though he were an Apostle yet having a singular assignation and staying here till death he might justly be called the Bâshop as indeed he was If he were not the Pastor whom had âhey foâ theâr Pastor Secondly those ordinary Pastors who were called Apostles of Churches in comparison of other Bishops and Presbyters they were in order and majority of power before other But Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians though they had oâher called Bishops Chap. 1.4 Ergo. The assumption that he is so called as their eminent Pastor is manifest by authorities Ierom. in Phil. 2. Tâerd and Châyâost on the same place Neither is it like this sacred appropriate name should bee given to any in regard of meere sending hither or thiâher Yea this that he was sent did argue him there Bishop for when thâ Churches had to send any where they did usually intreate their Bishops Thirdly Archippus they instituted at Colosse Ergo. Fourthly Timothy and âitus were instituted Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Crete Ergo. The Antecedent is proved thus That which is presupposed in their Epistles is true But it is presupposed that they wâre Bishops in these Churches Ergo The assumption proved Those whom the Epistles presuppose to have had Epâsâopall authority given them to bee exercised in those Churchâs thây are presupposed to have beene ordained bishops there But the Epistles presuppose them to have had Episcopall authority given them to be exercised in those Churches Ergo. The assumption proved 1. If the Epistles written to Timothy and Titus bee patternes of the Episcopall function informing them and in them all bishops then they were bishops But they are so Ergo. 2 Againe whosoever prescribing to Timothy and Titus their duties as governours in these Churches doth prescribe the very dutie of bishops hee doth presuppose them bishops But Paul doth so For what is the office of a bishop beside teaching but to ordaine and governe and governâ with âingularity of preheminence and majority of power in comparison of other Now these are the things which they have in charge Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 1 Tim. 1.3.11 2 Tim. 2.16 Ergo. 3. Those things which were written to informe not onely Timothy and Titus but in them all their successours who were Diocesan Bishops those were written to Diocesan bishops But these were so Ergo to Diocesan bâshops Now that Diocâsan bishops were their successours is proved 1. Either they or Presbyters or Congregations Not the latter 2. Againe Those who did suâceed them were their successours But Diocesan bishops did Ergo. The assumption is manifest by authorities In Ephesus from Timothy to Stephanus in the Counsell of Chalcedon And in Crete though no one is read to have succeeded yet there were bishops Diocesan And we read of Phillip bishop of Gorâiâa the Metropolis 4. Those who were ordinarily resident and lived and died at these Churâhes were there bishops But Timothy was bid abide here Titus to stay to correct all things and they lived and died here For Timothy it is testified by Hâgisippus and Clement and Eusebius out of them whom so refuse to believe deserve tâemselves no beliefe Ergo they were there bishops Againe Jerom. in Cat. Isidorus de vita morre Sanct. Antonius par 1. Tit. 6. cap. 28. Niceph. lib. 10. Cap. 11. these doe depose that they lived and died there Further to prove them bishops 5. Their function was Evangelicall and extraordinary or ordinary not the first âhât was to end For their function as assigned to these Churches and consisting especially in ordaining and jurisdiction was not to end Ergo. Assumption proved That function which was necessâây to the
whereby to doe those same things in the same Church is to no end Ergo. Object But it will be denied that any other power of order or to teach and administer sacraments was given then that he had as an Apostle but onely jurisdiction or right to this Church as his Church Answer To this I reply first that if hee had no new power of order he could not be an ordinary Bishop properly and formally so called Secondly I say power of governing ordinary was not needfull for him who had power as an Apostle in any Church where hee should come Object But it was not in vaine that by assignation hee should have right to reside in this Church as his Church Answer If by the mutuall agreement in which thây were guided by the spirit it was thought meere that Iames should abide in Jerusalem there tending boâh the Church of the Jewes and the whole circumcision as they by occasion resorted thither then by vertue of his Apostleship hee had no lesse right to tend those of the circumcision by residing here then the other had right to doe the same in the Provinces through which they walked But they did thinke it meete that hee should there tend that Church and with that Church all the Circumcision as they occasionally resorted thereto Ergo. For though hee was assigned to reside there yât his Apostolicke Pastorall care was as Iohns and Peters towards the whole multitude of the dispersed Jewes Galath 2. Now if it were assigned to him for his abode as hee was an Apostolicke Pastor what did hee need assignation under any other title Nay he could not have it otherwise assigned unlesse wee make him to sustaine another person viz. of an ordinary Pastor which hee could not bee who did receive no such power of order as ordinary Pastors hâve Fourthly that calling which hee could not exercise without being much abased that hee never was ordained unto as a point of honour for him But he could not exercise the calling of an ordinary Bâshop but hee must bee abased Hee must bee bound by office to meddle with authority and jurisdiction but in one Church hee must teach as an ordinary man liable to errour Ergo hee was never ordained to bee a Bishâp properly If it bee sacriledge to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter what is it to bring an Apostle to the degree of a Bishop True it is hee might have beene assigned to reside constantly in that Church without travelling and be no whit abased but then he must keepe there a Pastor of it with Apostolicall authority caring not for that Church but the whole number of the Jewes which hee might doe without travelling Because who so keeped in that Church hee did neede to goe forâh as the rest for the Jewes from all parts come to him But he could not make his abide in it as an ordinary teacher and governour without becomming many degrees lower then hee was For to live without goiâg forâh in the mother Church of all the world as an ordinary Paâtor was much lesse honour then to travaile as Peter one while into Assyria another while through Pontus Galatia Bithinia as an Apostle Even as to sit at home in worshipfull private place is lesse honourable then to goe abroad as Lord Embassadour âither or thither Honour and ease are seldome bed-fellowes Neither was Iames his honour in this circumstance of the rest but in having such an honourable place wherein to exercise his Apostolicke calling As for that question who was their ordinary Pastor it is easily answered Their Presbyters such as Linus or Clemens in Rome such as Ephesus and other Churches had Iames was their Pastor also but with extraordinary authority What needed they an ordinary Bishop which grew needfull as the favourers of the Hierarchy say to supply the absence of Apostles when now they were to decease What needed then here an ordinary Bishop where the Apostles were joyntly to keepe twelve yeares together and one to reside during his life according to the current of the story Thus much about the first instance To the second instance of Epaphroditus and the argument drawen from it First we deny the pâoposition For had some ordinary Pastors beene so stiled it might imply but a preheminencie of dignity in them above other wherefore unlesse this be interâerted it is unsound viz. Those ordinary Pastors who are called Apostles in comparison of others because the Apostles did give to them power of ordination jurisdiction and peerelesse preheminency which they did not give to others they are above others Secondly the Assumption is false altogether First thât Epaphroditus was an ordinary Pastor Secondly that hee was called an Apostle in comparison of inferiour Pastors of that Church Obi. But the judgement of Ierom Theodoret Chrysostome is that he was Answ. The common judgement is that he was an egregious teacher of theirs but further then this many of the testimonies doe not depose Now so he might be for he was an Evangelist and one who had visited and laboured among them and therefore might be called their teacher yea an egregious teacher or Doctor of them Nay Saint Ambrose doth plainely insinuate that he was an Evangelist for he saith he was made their Apostle by the Apostle while he sent him to exhort them and because he was a good man he was desired of the people Where hee makâth him sent not for perpetuall residence amongst them but for the âransunt exhorting of them and maketh him so desired of the Philippians because hee was a good man not because hee was their ordinary Pastor Ieroms testimony on this place doth not evince For the name of Apostles and Doctors is largely taken and as appliable to one who as an Evangelist did instruct them as to any other Thââd doth plainly take him to have been as their ordinarie bishop but no otherwise then Timothy and Titus and other Evangelists are said to have been bishops which how true it is in the next argument shall bee discussed For even Theodoret doth take him to have beene such an Apostolicke person as Timothy and Titus were Now these were as truly called bishops as the Apostles themselves Neither is the rule of Theodoreâ to bee admitted for it is unlike that the name of Apostle should bee communicated then with ordinarie Pastors where now there was danger of confounding those eminent Ministers of Christ with others and when now the Apostles were deceased that then it should cease to bee ascribed to them Againe how shall wee know that a bishop is to bee placed in a Citie that hee must bee a person thus and thus according to Pauls Canons qualified all is voided and made not to belong to a bishop For those who are called bishops were Presbyters and no bishops bishops being then to be understood onely uâder the name of Apostles and Angels Thirdly antiquity doth testifie that this was an honour to bishops when this name was
upon every occasion are enforced to take such corporall oathes as not one of them doth ever keep What other ground of this beside the fore-mentioned that particular Congregations are no spirituall incorporations and therefore must have no officers for government within themselves Now all these confusions with many others of the same kind how they are condemned in the very foundation of them M. Bains here sheweth in the first question by maintaining the divine constitution of a particular Church in one Congregation In which question he maintaineth against his adversaries a course not unlike to that which Armachanus in the daies of King Edward the third contended for against the begging Fâiers in his booke called The defence of Curates For when those Friers incroachâd upon the priviledges of Parochiall Ministers he withstood them upon these grounds Ecclesia Parochialis juxta verba Mosis Deut. 12. est locus electus a Deo in quo debemus accipere cuncta quae praecipit Dominus ex Sacramentis Parochus est ordinaritu Parochiani est persona a Deo praecepta vel mandato Dei ad illud ministerium explendum electa which if they be granted our adversaries cause may goe a begging with the foresaid Friers Another sort of corruptions there are which though they depend upon the same ground with the former yet immediately flow out of the Hierarchie What is more dissonant from the revealed will of Christ in the Gospell even also from the state of the Primitive Church tâen that the Church and Kingdome of Christ should be managed as the Kingdomes of the world by a Lordly authority with externall pompe commanding power contentious courts of judgâment furnished with chancellors officials commissaries advocates proctors paritors and such like humane devices Yet all this doth necessarily follow upon the admitting of such Bishops as ours are in England who not onely are Lords over the flock but doe professe so much in the highest degree when they tell us plainly that their Lawes or Canons doe binde mens consciences For herein we are like the people of Israel who would not have God for their immediate King but would have such Kings as other Nations Even so the Papists and we after them refuse to have Christâan immediate King in the immediate government of the Church but must have Lordly Rulers with state in Ecclesiasticall affaires such as the world hath in civill What a miserable pickle are the most of our Ministers in when they are urged to give an account of their calling To a Papist indeed they can give a shifting answer that they have ordination from Bishops which Bishops were ordained by other Bishops and they or their ordainers by Popish Bishops this in part may stop the mouth of a Papish but let a Protestant which doubteth of these matters move the question and what then will they say If they flie to popish Bishops as they are popish then let them goe no longer masked under the name of Protestants If they alledge succession by them from the Apostles then to say nothing of the appropriating of this succession unto the Popes chaire in whose name and by whose authority oâr English Bishops did all things in times past then I say they must take a great time for the satisfying of a poore man concerning this question and for the justifying of their station For untill that out of good records they can shew a perpetuall succession from the Apostles unto their Diocesan which ordained them and untill they can make the poore man which doubteth perceive the truth and certainty of those records which I wissâ they will doe at leasure they can never make that succession appeare If they flye to the Kings authority the King himseâfe will forsake them and deny that he taketh upon him to make or call Ministers If to the present Bishops and Archbishops alas they are as farre to seeke as themselves and much further The proper cause of all this misery is the lifting up of a lordly Prelacy upon the ruines of the Churches liberties How intollerable a bondage is it that a Minister being called to a charge may not preach to his people except he hath a licence from the Bishop or Archbishop Cannot receive the best of his Congregation to communion if he be censured in the spirituall Courts though it be but for not paying of six pence which they required of him in any name be the man otherwise never so innocent nor keep one from the communion that is not presented in those Courts or being presented is for money absolved though he be never so scandalous and must often times if hee will hold his place against his conscience put backe those from communion with Christ whom Christ doth call unto it as good Christians if they will not kneele and receive those that Christ putteth backe at the command of a mortall man What a burthen are poore Ministers pressed with in that many hundreds of them depend upon one Bishop and his Officers they must hurry up to the spirituall Court upon every occasion there to stand with cap in hând not onely before a Bishop but before his Chancellour to bee railed on many times at his pleasure to be censured suspended deprived for not observing some of those canons which were of purpose framed for snares when far more ancient and honest canons are every day broken by these Iudges themselves for lucre sake as in the making of Vtopian Ministers who have no people to minister unto in their holding of commendams in their taking of money even to extortion for orders and institutions in their symony as well by giving as by taking and in all their idle covetous and ambitious pompe For all these and such like abuses we are beholding to the Lordlinesse of our Hierarchy which in the root of it is here overthrown by M. Bayne in the conclusions of the second and âhird Question About which he hath the very same controversie that Marsilius Patavinus in part undertooke long since about the time of Edward the second against the Pope For he in his booke called Defensor pacis layeth the same grounds that here are maintained Some of his words though they be large I will here set downe for the Readers information Potestas clavium sive solvendi ligandi est essentialis inseparabilis Presbyterio in quantum Presbyter est In hac authoritate Episcopus à Sacerdote non differt teste Hieronymo imo verius Apostolo cujus etiam est aperta sententia Inquit enim Hieronymus super Mat. 16. Habent quidem eandem judiciariam potestatem alsi Apostoli habet omnes Ecclesia in Presbyteris Episcopis praeponens in hoc Presbyteros quoniam authoritas haec debetur Presbytero in quantum Presbyter primo secundum quod ipsum c. Many things are there discoursed to the same purpose dict 2. c. 15. It were too long to reâite all Yet one thing is worthy to be observed how he interpreteth
of bishops from the Apostles times for they prove their origânall to have beene in thâ Apostles times Neither were they instituted by any generall councell For long before the first generall councell we read Metropolitans to have beene ordained in the Churches Yea Ierom himselfe is of opinion that no councell of after times but the Apostles themselves did ordaine bishops for even since those contentions wherein some said I am Pauls others I am Apollos they were set up by generall decree whâch could not bee made but by the Apostles themselves And in Psal. 44. hee maketh David to prophecy of bishops who should be set up as the Apostles Successors Answer First we deny the proposition For first this doth presuppose such an assistance of Gods Spirit with the Church that she cannot generally take up any custome or opinion but what hath Apostolicall warrant whereas the contrary may be shewed in many instances Keeping of holy dayes was a generall practise through the Churches before any councell enacted it yet was no Apostolicall tradition Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. Evangelium non imposuit hoc ut dies festi observentur sed homines ipsi suu quique lâcis ex more quodem introduxerant Taking the Eucharist fasting the fasts on Wednesday and Saturday fasting ân some fashion before Eâster ceremonies in baptising the government of Metropolitans were generally received before any councell established 2. It doth presuppose that the Church cannot generally conspire in taking up any custome if she be not led into it by some generall proponent as a generall representative councell or the Apostles who wert Oecumenicall Doctors but I see no reason for such a presumption 3. Thââ doth presuppose that something may be which is of Aposâlicall authââity which neither directly nor consequently is included in thâ woââd written For when there are some customes which have beene generall which yet canot be grounded in the word written it is necessary by this proposition that some things may be in the Church having authority Apostolicall as being delivered by word unwritten For they cannot have warrant from the Apostles but by word written or unwritten To the proofe we answer That of Tertullian maketh not to the purpose for hee speaketh of that which was in Churches Apostolicall as they were now planted by them which the sentence at large set downe wâll make cleare Si cor stat id bonum quod pâius id prius quod estaâ initio ab initio quod ab Apostolis pariterutique constabil id âsse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum funit sacrosanctum Touching Austins rule we would aâke what is the meaning of these words Non nisi Apostolica authoritate traditum rectissime creâitur If thây say his meaning is that such a thing cannot but in their writings be delivered they doe pervert his meaning as is apparent by that Cont. Don. lib. 2.27 Confuetudinem ex Apostoloâem traditions venâentem siâut multa non inveniuntur in literis corum tamen quia custodiuntâ per universam Ecclesiam non nisi ab ipsit tradita commendata creduntur And we wish them to shew from Scripture what âhey say is contained in it If thây yeeld he doth meane as he doth of nowritten tradition we hope thây will not justifie him in this we will take that liberty in him which himselfe doth in all others and giveth us good leave to use in his owne writings Now count him in thâs to favour Traditions as some of the Papists do not causelâsly make this rule the measuring cord which doth take in the lâtitude of all traditions yât wee appeale to Austines judgement otherwhere who though by this rule hee maketh a universall practise not begunne by Councells an argument of Divine and Apostolicall authority yet dealing against Donatists Lib. 1. Don. cap. 7. hee saith he will not use this argument because it was but humane and uncertaine ne videâr humanis argumentis illud probare ex Evangelio profero certu documentâ Wee answer to the assumption two things First it canot bee proved that unâversâlly there were such Diocesan bishops as ours For in the Apostles times it cannot be proved that Churches which they planted were divided into a mother Church and some Parochiall Churches Now while they governed together in common with Presbyters and that but one congregation they could not be like our Diocesan bâshops And though there bee doubtfull relations that Rome was divided under Evaristus yet this was not common through the Church For Tripaâtitâ story testâfieth that till the time of Sozomeh they did in some parts continue together Trip. hist. lib. 5. cap. 19. Secondly those Bâshops which had no more but one Deacon âo helpe them in their ministery toward their Churches they could not be Dâocesan Bâshops But such in many parts the Apostles planted as Epiphanius doth testifie Ergo. Thirdly such Countries as did use to have bishops in villages and little townes could not have Diocesan bâshops But such there were after the Apostles times in Cyprus and Arabia as Sâzom in his 7. booke cap. 10. testifieth Ergo. Diocesan bishops were never so universally received Secondly bishops came to be common by a Councell saith Ambrose Prospiciente Concilio Amb. in 4. ad Eph. or by a Dâcree pâssing through the world toto orbe decretum est saith Ierom ad Evag. which is to bee considered not of one Oecumeniall Councell but distributively in that singular Churches did in their Presbyteries decree and that so that one for the most part followed another in it This interpretative though not formalitèr is a generall decree But to thinke this was a decree of Pauls is too too absurd For besides that the Scripture would not have omitted a decree of such importance as tended to the alteration of and consummation of the frame of Churches begun through all the world How could Ierom if this decree were the Apostles conclude that bishops were above Presbyters magii consuetudine Ecclesia then Dominicae dispositionis veritate If the Doct. do except that custome is here put for Apostolicall institution let him put in one for the other and see how well it will become the sense Let Bishops know they are greater theâ Priests rather by the Decree of the Apostle then by the truth of Christs disposition Is it not fine that the Apostles should be brought in as opposites facing Christ their Lord And this conclusion of Ierom doth make me thânke that decretum est imported no more then that it was tooke up in time for custome through the world Which is elegantly said to be a decree because custome groweth in time to obtaine vim legis the force of a decree But Ambâose his place is plain Prospiciente Concilio he meaneth not a councell held by Apostles For he maketh this provision by councell to have come in when now in Egypt Alexandria Presbyters according to the custome of that Church were not found fit to
succeed each other but they chose out of their presbyteries men of best desert Now to Heraclas and Donysius there were a succession of Presbyters in the Church of Alexandria as Eusebius and Ierom both affirme Wherefore briefly seeing no such universall custome can be proved all the godly âathers never conspired to abolish Christs institution Secondly could a custome have prevailed with all of them whom we have to Constantines time yet it might enter and steale upon them through humane frailty as these errours in doctrine did upon many otherwise godly and faâthfull Martyrs the rather because the alteration was so little at the first and Aristocraticall government was still continued Thirdly say they had wittingly and wittingly done it through the world they had not conspired because they might have deemed such power in the Church and themselves to doe nothing but what they might with Christs good liking for the edification of it How many of the chiefe Patrons of this cause are at this day of this judgement that if it were but an Apostolicall institution as Apostolicall is contradistinguished to divine they might change it But if the Apostles did enact this order as Legats and Embassadours of Christ then is it not theirs but Christs owne institution What an Embassadour speaketh as an Embassadour it is principally from him that sent him but if they who were Legates dâd not bearing the person of Legats but of ordinary Ecclesiasticall governours decree this then it is certaine Church governours may alter it without treasonable conspiring against Châist As for those proofes that Bishops have beene throughout all Chârches from the beginning they are weake For first the Councell of Nice useth ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not simpliciter but secundum quid in order hâpply to thât time wherein the custome began which was better knowne to them then to us the phrase is so used Act. 15.8 in respect of some things which had not continued many yeares They cannot meane the Apostles times for then Metropolitans should have actually beene from the Apostles time Secondly the phrase of the Councell of Ephesus is likewise aequivocall for they have reference to the fathers of Nice or at least the decrees of the fathers who went before the Councell of Nice For those words being added definitiones Nicenae fidei seeme to explaine tâe former Canones Apostolorum It is plaine the decree of the Councell doth ascâibe this thâng onely to ancient custome no lesse thân that of Nice Constantinople and Chalcedon and therefore cannot rise to the auâhoâity of sacred Scriptures Let him shew in all antiquity where sacred Scriptures are called Canons of the Apostles Finally if this phrase note rules given by the Apostles then the Apostles themselves did set out the bounds of Cyprus and Antioch As for the authârity of Cyprian he doth testifie what was Communiter in his time Bishops odained in cities not universâliter as if thâre were no city but had some Secondây hee speaketh of Bishâps who had their Chuâches included in Cities not more then might meet together in one to any common delâberations They had no Dâocesan Churches nâr were bishops who had majority of rule over their Presbyters nor sole power of ordination As for the Catalogue of succession it is pompae apâior quam pugnae Râme can recite their successors But because it hath hâd bishops Erâo Oecumenicall bâshops is no consequence All who are named bâshops in the Catalogue were not of one cut and in that sense we conârovert Touching that which doth improve their being constituted by any Councell it is very weâke For though wee read of no generall Councell yet there might be and the report not come to us Secondây we have shewed that the Councell of Nice doth not prove this that bishops were every where from the beginning the phrase of from the beginning being there respectively not absolutely used Neither doth Ierom ever contrary this for hee doth not use those words in propireây but by way of allusion otherwise if hee did think the Apostle had published this decree when the first to the Corinths was written how can he cite testimonies long after written to prove that Bishops were not instituted in the Apostles time but that they were ordained by the Church jure Ecclesiastico when the time served for it The sixt Argument Such as even at this day are in the reformed Churches such Ministers are of Christs institution But Ministers having singularitie of preheminence and power above others are amongst them as the Superintendents in Germany Ergo. Answ. The assumption is utterly denied For Superintendents in Germany are nothing like our Bishops they are of the same degree with other Ministers they are onely Presiâents while the Synod lasteth when it is dissâlved their prerogative ceaseâh they have no prerogative over their fellow Ministers they are subject to the Presbyteries Zepp lib. 2 cap. 10. pag. 324. The Synod ended they returne to the care of their particular Churches The seventh Argument If it were necessary that while the Apostles lived there should bee such Ministers as had preheminence and majority of power above others much more after their departure But they thought it necessity and therefore appointed Timothy and Titus and other Apostoliâke men furnished with such power Ergo much more after their departure Answ. The assumption is denyed and formerly disproved for they appointed no such Apostolicke men with Episcopall power in which they should be succeeded The eighth Argument Such Ministers as were in the Apostles times not contradicted by them were lawfull For they would not have held their peace had they knowne unlawfull Ministers to have crept into the Churches But there were before Iohns death in many Churches a succession of Diocesan Bishops as in Rome Linus Clemens at Jârusalem Iames Simeon at Aâtioch Evodius at Alexandria S. Maâk Anianus Abilius Ergo Diocesan Bishops be lawfull Answer The assumption is denyed for these Bishops were but Presbyters Pastors of one congregation ordinarily meeting governing with common consent of their Presbyteries If they were affecting our bishops majority they were in Diotrophes sufficiently contradicted The ninth Argument Those who have beene ever held of a higher order then Presbyters they are before Presbyters in preheminence and majority of rule But bishops have beene held in a higher order by all antiquity Ergo. The assumption is manifest In the Councell of Nice Ancyra Sardica Antioch Ministers are distinguished into three orders Ignatius Clemens in his Epistle to Iames Dionys. Arcopâg de Coolest Hierom. cap. 5. Tertull. de fugâ in persecutione de Baptismo Ignatius doth often testifie it No wonder when the Scripture it selfe doth call one of these a step to another 1 Timoth. 3.13 Cyprian Lib. 4. Ep. 2. Counc Ephes. Cap. 1.2.6 Yea the Councell of Chalcedon counteth it sacriledge to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter This Hierome himselfe confirmeth saying That from Marke to Heraclâs and Dionysius the Presbyters did see
Fervi ârdinarli or praepofiti some are under others to do this or that commanded by them commonly called servi vicarii but in the Church all servants serve their Master Christ neither having any that they can command nor being under any but Christ so as to be commanded by them But it may be objected that God hath ordained some to be helpes and assistants to othersome It is said that God hath ordained powers helps governours 1 Cor. 12.8 and were not the Evangelists assistants to the Apostles doing that to which they directed them To this I answer that the helps God hath put in his Church respect the calling of Deacons and such as ministred to the infirme ones As for Evangelists they were companions and assistanâs to the Apostles but it was in order to the work of God in their hands which they were to serve not in order to their persons as if they had been subjected to them in any servile inferiority Observe how Paul speaketh of them 2 Cor. 8.23 Vituâ wâs his companion and helper towards them Phil. 2.25 Epaphroditus was his brother and helper in his worke and fellow souldier 1 Thess. 3.2 Timothy was his coadjutor in the Gospell of Christ 2 Tim. 4.11 Marke was helpefull in the Ministery The truth is this was servitus ãâã porfâââlis ãâã reâlis the Evangelists did serve the worke the Apostles had in hand with out being servants to their persons When brick-layers worke some mixe line and make mortar some beare up tile and mortar some sit on the house and there lay that which is bâought them These are all fellow servants yet the one doth serve to set forward the worke of the other But were they not left to the direction of the Apostles wholly in exercise of their calling I answer as Christ gave some to be Evangelists so he made them know from himselfe what belonged to their office and what was the administration to which he called them He did not therefore wholly leave them to the direction of any There is a double direction one pâtesâatiue which is made from majority of rule ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the other socialis such as one servant having fit knowledge of his masters will and ripe experience may give to another The latter kinde of direction it was not the former by which the Evangelists were directed Which though commonly Paul used yet not so universally but that they went sometime of their owne accords hither and thither as may be gathered 2 Cor. 8.16 17. and 2.7.14 15. The fift Argument That which the Apostles had not over Prophets Evangelists Presbyters nor Deacons themselves that power whâch the Church hath not over any member the bishop hath not over other ministers But they had not over any inferior officers any majority of directive or corrective power neither hath the Church it selfe any such power Ergo. The assumption is proved for majority of directive and corrective power is a Lord-like and Regall power now there is no such power in the Church or in the Apostles or in any but onely in that one Lord all other power being but a declarative and executive ministery to signifie and execute what Christ out of majority of power would have signified and put in execution The sixth Argument That which doth breed an Antichristian usurpation never was of Christs institution But bishops majority of power in regard of order and jurisdiction doth so Ergo. That which maketh the bishop a head as doth in sâuere derive the power of externall government to other his assistants that doth breed an Antichristian usurpation But to claime the whole power of jurisdiction through a Diocesan Church doth so for he must needs substitute helpers to him because it is more then by himselfe he can performe But this is it which maketh Antichrist he doth take upon him to be head of the whole Church from whom is derived this power of externall government and the bishop doth no lesse in his Diocesan Church that which he usurpeth differing in degree onely and extension not in kind from that which the Pope arrogateth If it be said that his power is Antichristian because it is universall it is not so For were the power lawfull the universality could not make it Antichristian The Apostles had an universality of authority yet no Antichrists because it did not make them heads deriving to others from their fulnesse it was not prince-like majority of power but steward like and ministeriall onely If one doe usurpe a kingly power in Kent onely he were an Anti-king to our Soveraigne no lesse for kind then if he proclaimed himselfe King of England Sâotland and Ireland There is but one Lord and many ministrations Neither doth this make the Popes power papall because it is not under a Synod for the best of the Papists hold and it is the most common tenent that he is subject to an Oecumenicall Councell Secondly though he be subject yet that doth not hinder but he may usurpe a kingly government for a King may have a kingly power and yet confesse himselfe accountable to all his people collectively considered neither doth this make the Bishops lawfull in one Church because one may manage it and the Popes unlawfull because none is sufficient to sway such a power through the whole Church for then all the power the Pope doth challenge is not per se but per accidens unlawfull by reason of mans unsufficiency who cannot weâld so great a matter The seventh Argument Those Ministers who are made by one patent in the same words have equall authority but all Ministers of the Word are made by the same patent in the same words Receive the holy Ghost whose staâ ye forgive c. Ergo. The proposition is denied because the sence of the words is to be understood according as the persons give leave to whom they are spoken These words spoken to Apostles they gave them larger power then to a Bishop and so spoken to a Presbyter they give him lesse power then to a Bishop Answ If the Scripture had distinguished of Presbyters Pastoral feeding with the Word and made them divers degrees as it hath made Apostles and Evangelists then we would grant the excepâion but the Scripture doth not know this division of Pastors and Doctors into chiefe and assistent but speaketh of them as of Apostles and Evangelists who were among themselves equall in degree Wherefore as no Apostle received by these words greater power then another so no Pastor or Teacher but must receive the same power as who are among thâmselves of the same degree Secondly were they different degrees yet it should give the Presbyter for kind though not of so ample extent as the Bâshop haâh as it giveth the Bishop the same power for kinde which the Apostles had though not so universall but contracted to particular Churches Now to some unto some conclusions or assertions which may leâd light unto the deciding of this question Conclus